More Nuclear Weapons Needed???

The Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons is the cornerstone of the nonproliferation regime. It entered into force in 1970, and 190 states have subscribed. The treaty covers three mutually reinforcing pillars—disarmament, nonproliferation, and peaceful uses of nuclear energy—and is the basis for international cooperation on stopping the spread of nuclear weapons. The basic bargain at the core of the NPT is sound: Countries with nuclear weapons will move towards disarmament; countries without nuclear weapons will not acquire them; and all countries can access peaceful nuclear technology. – U.S. Department of State

As of August 2016, 191 states have adhered to the treaty, though North Korea announced its withdrawal from the NPT in 2003, following detonation of nuclear devices in violation of the treaty. Four UN member states have never accepted the NPT, three of which are thought to possess nuclear weapons: India, Israel, and Pakistan. In addition, South Sudan has not joined. The treaty recognizes five states as nuclear-weapon states: the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, and China.

Though it is highly unlikely that the world will ever completely rid itself of nuclear weapons, the goal for the past half-century has been to reduce the number in existence and limit any new ones.  This is a necessary goal and its fulfillment is crucial to the survival of life on this planet.  But today, according to a December 10th article in der Spiegel, other nations such as Germany are contemplating building their own nuclear arsenals.

According to Thomas Graham, Jr., writing for Arms Control Association, “40 countries or more now have the know-how to produce nuclear weapons. If they had all chosen to exploit this capability, it would be impossible to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorist organizations and rogue states.”  Graham further states, “the NPT non-nuclear-weapon states agree never to acquire nuclear weapons and the NPT nuclear-weapon states in exchange agree to share the benefits of peaceful nuclear technology and to pursue nuclear disarmament aimed at the ultimate elimination of their nuclear arsenals.”  This has worked well for some 45 years. The U.S. has provided an umbrella to shelter its allies in Europe (most importantly, Germany) and Asia (Japan and South Korea). During the Cold War, U.S. allies could rely on the protection of nuclear deterrence without building their own arsenals.

And then came Donald Trump. For decades, the final line of defense for Europe against possible Russian aggression has been provided by the American nuclear arsenal. But since Donald Trump’s election as the 45th president of the United States, officials in Berlin and Brussels are no longer certain that Washington will continue to hold a protective hand over Europe. In March and April, Trump made statements such as, “If Japan had that nuclear threat, I’m not sure that would be a bad thing for us.” And [nuclear proliferation] is going to happen anyway.” Nor would it be so bad, he’s said, if South Korea and Saudi Arabia had nuclear weapons, too.  So, even though the current Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) has kept nuclear weapons stockpiles relatively low and stable since 1970, Trump comes along and, assuming he knows more than the intellectuals who have worked to keep the planet safe for decades, determines it would be better for the world to go all-out nuclear?

Trump has already announced his intent to withdraw from NATO which he has referred to as being ‘obsolete’, and with his statements about nuclear proliferation, our allies overseas cannot help but wonder if he will also refuse to provide the shield they have come to rely upon. The questions surrounding this issue are far too complex for a blog post, but common sense dictates that we do not need an expanded nuclear arsenal in the world, but at the same time, we certainly cannot remove our promised protections and expect our allies to sit like ducks in a pond without making arrangements for their own protection.  Among the biggest fears, as stated earlier, is that the more there are, the more likely they will fall into the wrong hands.  I do not think any of us wish to think about Daesh or al qaeda getting their hands on nuclear weapons. Without firm U.S. opposition to the spread of nuclear weapons — a policy implemented through “carrots” like alliances and “sticks” like sanctions — the world would probably have far more than nine countries with nuclear weapons. What’s more, research suggests that nuclear proliferation would reduce U.S. world influence, undermine global stability and increase the risk of nuclear war. Perhaps more importantly, if we let our allies down, we may find that we have no allies.

21 thoughts on “More Nuclear Weapons Needed???

    • No, that is not it. I do read some of your posts, though not all. The reason I don’t read all is simply time constraints. Though I am retired, there never seem to be enough hours in a day! I still do some work for a handful of clients, write this blog, write for two online publications, run a household, read a LOT, and have a guy who requires a little phone time each evening. At around 1:00 a.m., after the work is done, I try to read as many blogs by fellow-bloggers as I can, but in no way can I read them all, so I do what I can. The reason I don’t comment is that I try not to start arguments on other people’s blogs … if I can agree with you, I will comment to that effect, if I don’t, I read and move on. However, I shall try to comment on one of your posts soon! As always, thanks for reading AND for your comments! 🙂

      Liked by 1 person

    • Trump has said that he would “certainly look at” pulling the United States out of the international security alliance, because it is “obsolete” and “is costing us a fortune.” Now, an example I used in an earlier post, but before you started reading my blog, is this: If your neighbors house catches fire, are you going to go check to see if he returned your lawnmower before going to his aid, and if he hasn’t returned said lawnmower, will you say, “Sorry, buddy, you owe me already, so i can’t help you out,”? Certainly there is room for improvement in the equities of Nato, but it is a very valuable organization that has served us well for nearly 70 years, and I think we should not throw out the baby with the bathwater.


    • We already do. The bigger concern is that countries like Germany, Japan and Saudi Arabia might feel the need to build a nuclear arsenal, and … a) nobody wants to see nuclear capabilities in the hands of those 3 nations, in particular, given their past history, and b) as mentioned in the post, the more nuclear weapons that are out there, the greater the likelihood they will fall into the wrong hands. This is about remaining loyal to our allies, putting their minds at ease, else it becomes a real problem. Many of my European readers have expressed this concern repeatedly over the past year, and if you click on the links I provided, you can see why Europe is nervous.


  1. The man has only to open his mouth and something nasty or potentially dangerous slips out. With something like this, I’m not sure your allies will be able to wait four years and watch our enemies becoming nuclear without any barriers.
    He’s either a very dangerous fool or the mouthpiece of some malignant force. Russia with it’s spent arsenal and reduced circumstances without it’s satellite countries seems a safe bet. He could be a fellow traveller and hand in glove with them. Either way great harm can come to America under his declared policies and certainly under the personnel he’s putting in place.
    I’m looking for a miracle.
    xxx Hugs Galore xxx

    Liked by 1 person

    • Yes, he claims to be so ‘smart’ that he does not need the daily briefings that he should be getting during this transition period, yet everything he says and does are the actions of a stupid man. His relationship with Russia is both puzzling and frightening. In today’s world, no nation can be isolationist, but that seems to be the direction he wishes to take. And I really have no desire to become a part of some new Soviet bloc. Sigh … HUGS!

      Liked by 1 person

  2. The man is not only a fool, but a dangerous fool as well. Let’s hope the movement to stop his election succeeds. The recent revelations about the role of Russia in his election seems to have started quite a movement in that direction.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. It is interesting to note the strong arm leaders in the world are excited about Trump, while our allies are cautious. Let’s invite Duterte to the White House before Theresa May(or at all) is the message from Trump.

    Liked by 1 person

I would like to hear your opinion, so please comment if you feel so inclined.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s